Search

PurposeTo develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS).DesignObservational study before and after concomitant cataract and Food and Drug Administration-approved implantable MIGS device surgery.SettingSurvey administration was on a computer, iPad, or similar device.Patient population184 adults completed the baseline survey, 124 a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37 to 89 (average age = 72). Most were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%).Main outcome measuresThe Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) assesses functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items), and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). These multiple-item scales were scored on a 0 to 100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health.ResultsInternal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 to 0.93, and 1-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.83 to 0.92 for the GOS scales. Product-moment correlations among the scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r = 0.18, P = .0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, P = .0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, P = .0503). Responders to treatment ranged from 17% for vision-related symptoms to 48% for functional limitations.ConclusionsThis study supports using the GOS for ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in different patient subgroups and clinical settings is needed.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to understand the usability and acceptability of virtual reality (VR) among a racially and ethnically diverse group of patients who experience chronic pain.Materials and methodsUsing the Technology Acceptance Model theory, we conducted semistructured interviews and direct observation of VR use with English-speaking patients who experience chronic pain treated in a public healthcare system (n = 15), using a commercially available VR technology platform. Interviews included questions about current pain management strategies, technology use, experiences and opinions with VR, and motivators for future use.ResultsBefore the study, none of the 15 participants had heard about or used VR for pain management. Common motivators for VR use included a previous history of substance use and having exhausted many other options to manage their pain and curiosity. Most participants had a positive experience with VR and 47% found that the VR modules distracted them from their pain. When attempting the navigation-based usability tasks, most participants (73%-92%) were able to complete them independently.DiscussionVR is a usable tool for diverse patients with chronic pain. Our findings suggest that the usability of VR is not a barrier and perhaps a focus on improving the accessibility of VR in safety-net settings is needed to reduce disparities in health technology use.ConclusionsThe usability and acceptability of VR are rarely studied in diverse patient populations. We found that participants had a positive experience using VR, showed interest in future use, and would recommend VR to family and friends.

BackgroundThe Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) used to evaluate the health status of patients with heart failure (HF) but has predominantly been tested in settings serving predominately white, male, and economically well-resourced populations. We sought to examine the acceptability of the shorter version of the KCCQ (KCCQ-12) among racially and ethnically diverse patients receiving care in an urban, safety-net setting.MethodsWe conducted cognitive interviews with a diverse population of patients with heart failure in a safety net system to assess their perceptions of the KCCQ-12. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data then mapped themes to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behavior framework.ResultsWe interviewed 18 patients with heart failure and found that patients broadly endorsed the concepts of the KCCQ-12 with minor suggestions to improve the instrument's content and appearance. Although patients accepted the KCCQ-12, we found that the instrument did not adequately measure aspects of health care and quality of life that patients identified as being important components of managing their heart failure. Patient-important factors of heart failure management coalesced into three main themes: social support, health care environment, and mental health.ConclusionsPatients from this diverse, low-income, majority non-white population experience unique challenges and circumstances that impact their ability to manage disease. In this study, patients were receptive to the KCCQ-12 as a tool but perceived that it did not adequately capture key health components such as mental health and social relationships that deeply impact their ability to manage HF. Further study on the incorporation of social determinants of health into PROMs could make them more useful tools in evaluating and managing HF in diverse, underserved populations.

PurposeTo develop a vision-targeted health-related quality-of-life instrument for patients with glaucoma who are candidates for minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS).DesignDevelopment of a health-related quality-of-life instrument.ParticipantsTwelve practicing ophthalmologists and 41 glaucoma patients.MethodsA questionnaire was constructed to assess functional limitations, vision-related symptoms, aesthetics, psychosocial issues, and surgical satisfaction for MIGS candidates. Questions were drafted after a review of the literature and subsequently refined based upon input from 1 physician and 4 patient focus groups. Nineteen cognitive interviews were used to ensure that questions were understandable to respondents.ResultsThe focus group identified the following key issues and concerns as being important to glaucoma patients: functional limitations (eg, driving), bodily discomfort (eg, stinging from drops), changes in appearance (eg, drooping eyelid), and psychosocial concerns (eg, mental burden associated with a diagnosis of glaucoma, financial burden of treatment). Cognitive interviews resulted in the following improvements to the questionnaire: changes in wording to clarify lighting conditions, and additional questions addressing psychosocial issues, such as job loss, severity of disease, and perception of MIGS.ConclusionsA patient-reported outcomes instrument, the Glaucoma Outcomes Survey, was developed to evaluate MIGS for patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. Next steps include electronic administration to patients selected from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. An electronic patient-reported outcomes platform will be used to administer the questionnaire before and after MIGS. The questionnaire will improve understanding of how surgical interventions such as MIGS impact vision-targeted health-related quality-of-life in glaucoma patients.

BackgroundMany therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies.ObjectivesTo summarize the progress to date.MethodsQuestionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods.ResultsQuestionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day."ConclusionsPatients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Introduction: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. Methods: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module Results: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency. Conclusions: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding. Highlights: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes. We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy. Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ImportancePatient-reported outcomes should be collected using validated questionnaires prior to and following laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery.ObjectiveTo report the frequency of patient-reported visual symptoms, dry eye symptoms, satisfaction with vision, and satisfaction with LASIK surgery in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies.Design, setting, and participantsThe PROWL-1 and PROWL-2 studies were prospective, observational studies conducted from September 13, 2011, to June 27, 2014. The PROWL-1 study was a single-military center study of 262 active-duty Navy personnel 21 to 52 years of age. The PROWL-2 study was a study of 312 civilians 21 to 57 years of age conducted at 5 private practice and academic centers. The LASIK surgery and the postoperative care were performed based on the usual practice and clinical judgment at the site. Participants completed a self-administered, web-based questionnaire, preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 and 3 months (the PROWL-1 and -2 studies) and at 6 months (the PROWL-2 study).ExposuresParticipants underwent LASIK surgery for myopia, hyperopia, and/or astigmatism.Main outcomes and measuresVisual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and/or starbursts), dry eye symptoms, participant satisfaction (with vision and LASIK surgery), and clinical measures (visual acuity, refractive error, and slitlamp and posterior segment eye examination findings) were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.ResultsA total of 262 participants were enrolled in the PROWL-1 study (mean [SD] age, 29.1 [6.1] years), and a total of 312 participants were enrolled in the PROWL-2 study (mean [SD] age, 31.5 [7.3] years). Visual symptoms and dissatisfaction with vision were common preoperatively. Overall, the prevalence of visual symptoms and dry eye symptoms decreased, although a substantial percentage of participants reported new visual symptoms after surgery (43% [95% CI, 31%-55%] from the PROWL-1 study and 46% [95% CI, 33%-58%] from the PROWL-2 study at 3 months). The percentages of participants in the PROWL-1 study with normal Ocular Surface Disease Index scores were 55% (95% CI, 48%-61%) at baseline, 66% (95% CI, 59%-72%) at 3 months, and 73% (95% CI, 67%-79%) at 6 months. The percentages of participants in the PROWL-2 study with normal Ocular Surface Disease Index scores were 44% (95% CI, 38%-50%) at baseline and 65% (95% CI, 59%-71%) at 3 months. Of those participants who had normal scores at baseline in both the PROWL-1 and -2 studies, about 28% (95% CI, 19%-37%) had mild, moderate, or severe dry eye symptoms at 3 months. While most participants were satisfied, the rates of dissatisfaction with vision ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%), and the rates of dissatisfaction with surgery ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 2% (95% CI, 1%-5%).Conclusions and relevanceThe systematic administration of a questionnaire to patients who have undergone LASIK surgery is a new approach to assess symptoms and satisfaction. Our findings support the need for adequate counseling about the possibility of developing new symptoms after LASIK surgery.

ImportancePatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) are needed.ObjectiveTo develop PRO measures to assess satisfaction, eye-related symptoms, and their effect on functioning and well-being following LASIK based on patient and expert input.Design, setting, and participantsThe Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies were prospective observational studies of patients undergoing LASIK surgery for myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism. PROWL-1 was a single-center study of active-duty US Navy personnel and PROWL-2 was a 5-center study of civilians. PROWL-1 enrolled 262 active-duty service personnel and PROWL-2 enrolled 312 civilians 21 years or older who spoke English; 241 individuals in PROWL-1 and 280 in PROWL-2 completed a baseline questionnaire before surgery. The analytic sample included those also completing 1 or more follow-up questionnaires: 240 (99.6%) of those in PROWL-1 and 271 (94.4%) of those in PROWL-2. Questionnaires were self-administered through the internet preoperatively and at 1 and 3 months postoperatively in both studies and at 6 months postoperatively in PROWL-1. PROWL-1 began in August 2011 and was completed May 30, 2014; PROWL-2 began in July 2012 and was completed June 27, 2014. Data were analyzed from June 28, 2014, to October 24, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresScales assessing visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and starbursts), dry eye symptoms, satisfaction with vision, and satisfaction with LASIK surgery. Items from the National Eye Institute (NEI) Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42), NEI Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ), and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) were included. All scales are scored on a 0 to 100 possible range. Construct validity and responsiveness to change were evaluated (comparing scores before and after surgery).ResultsThe median age of the 240-person PROWL-1 analytic sample was 27 years (range, 21-52 years); 49 were women (20.4%). The median age of the 271-person PROWL-2 analytic sample was 30 years (range, 21-57 years); 147 were women (54.2%). Internal consistency reliabilities for the 4 visual symptom scales ranged from 0.96 to 0.98 in PROWL-1 and from 0.95 to 0.97 in PROWL-2. The median (interquartile range) test-retest intraclass correlation was 0.69 (0.57-0.79) and 0.76 (0.68-0.84) in PROWL-1 and PROWL-2, respectively. Product-moment correlations of satisfaction with surgery with visual symptom scales at follow-up evaluations ranged from r = 0.24 to r = 0.49. Measures improved from baseline to follow-up, with effect sizes of 0.14 to 1.98, but scores on the NEI-RQL-42 glare scale worsened at the 1-month follow-up. Hours of work did not change significantly from baseline to 1-month follow-up, with the mean number (mean [SD] difference) in PROWL-1 of 41.7 vs 40.9 hours (-0.8 [18.7]) and in PROWL-2 of 38.8 vs 38.2 hours (-0.6 [17.1]).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of these studies support the reliability and validity of visual symptom scales to evaluate the effects of LASIK surgery in future studies.